Disposed¶47

Chandrasekaran, v. Sathasivam.a

Madras HC21 Feb 2025WA(MD)/1399/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal disposed, affirming removal of permanent tin roof shed near Arulmighu Pundarikaksha Perumal Temple, Thiruvellarai; land held “Sarkar Poramboke” earmarked for thaneer panthal dharmam; patayadharars' customary right to erect panthal sheds during annual temple festivals (water charity) preserved; jurisdictional Police directed to assist removal; natural justice grievance cured by fresh hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal disposed of by affirming the direction given by the learned single Judge for removal of the permanent tin roof structure, while preserving the customary right of patayadharars to erect sheds during the annual temple festivals; Police directed to assist removal; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs. ¶47

Chandrasekaran, Vs Sathasivam.a — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, who claims he was not heard before the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, was entitled to a fresh hearing of the matter on merits. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

The appellant's grievance that he was not heard before the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition has some force; the Division Bench therefore decided to hear the issue afresh on merits.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

On going through the revenue records, the Court was satisfied that the land in question is classified as “Sarkar Poramboke” earmarked for thaneer panthal dharmam.

¶41

Key takeaways

The learned single Judge was justified in ordering removal of the permanent tin roof structure erected in the immediate vicinity of the temple; the Division Bench found no ground to interfere with that order.ratio¶42
The customary rights were recognised: patayadharars are permitted to erect the shed during the annual temple festivals for the purpose of carrying out water charity.ratio¶42
The jurisdictional Police were directed to extend their fullest assistance to the management of the temple for removing the tin roof structure put up by the appellant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (G.R. Swaminathan and M. Jothiraman, JJ.) of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, by judgment dated 21.02.2025 in W.A.(MD)No.1399 of 2021, disposed of the writ appeal filed by the fifth respondent in W.P(MD)No.10184 of 2021, affirming the learned single Judge's direction dated 21.06.2021 to remove a permanent tin-roof shed erected in the immediate vicinity of Arulmighu Pundarikaksha Perumal Temple, Thiruvellarai. Hearing the matter afresh on merits (the appellant having alleged he was not heard below), the Court found from revenue records that the land is “Sarkar Poramboke” earmarked for thaneer panthal dharmam, held the single Judge justified in ordering removal, while recognising the customary right of patayadharars to erect temporary panthal sheds during the Sithirai and Panguni temple festivals for water charity, and directed the jurisdictional Police to assist the temple management in removing the structure. Connected C.M.P(MD)Nos.5803 & 5804 of 2021 closed; no costs.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.1399 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶8

W.A(MD)No.1399 of 2021 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.5803 & 5804 of 2021

¶9

Chandrasekaran ... Appellant / 5^th Respondent

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.A.Sathasivam

¶12

... Respondent / Petitioner

¶13

2.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

¶15

No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶16

4.Arulmigu Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam,

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.A.(MD)No.1399 of 2021

¶20

Represented by the Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Srirangam, Trichy. 5.The Tahsildar, Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District. ... Respondents / Respondents 1 to 4

¶21

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order in W.P(MD)No.10184 of 2021 dated 21.06.2021 on the file of this Court.

¶22

For Appellant : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader for R.2, R.3 & R.5

¶23

Mr.Saravanan for R.4

¶24

No Appearance for R.1

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned

¶27

counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2, 3 & 5. Though the writ petitioner has been served and his name is printed in the cause list,

¶28

he has not chosen to enter appearance.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

2/6

¶31

W.A.(MD)No.1399 of 2021

¶32

2.The first respondent herein filed W.P(MD)No.10184 of 2021 for

¶33

removing the tin sheet shed put up in the immediate vicinity of Arulmighu Pundarikaksha Perumal Temple, Thiruvellarai. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge on 21.06.2021 in the following terms:

¶34

“5. In view of the specific stand taken by the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the official respondents, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to ensure that the shed is removed within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If there is any resistance, the third respondent shall take police protection and implement the order passed by this Court.”

¶35

Questioning the same, the fifth respondent in the Writ Petition filed this Writ Appeal.

¶36

3.The primary grievance of the appellant is that he was not heard before the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. This grievance has some force. Therefore, we decided to hear the issue afresh on merits.

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

3/6

¶39

W.A.(MD)No.1399 of 2021

¶40

4.The learned counsel for the temple admits that there is a customary practice of erecting a panthal in connection with the temple festival which is held twice a year (in the month of Sithirai and Panguni). The villagers known a patayadharars are known to do a charity known as Thanner panthal dharmam. Only for this purpose they are permitted to erect a temporary shed. But unfortunately a permanent tin roof structure had been put up and that furnished the cause for filing the writ petition.

¶41

5.We went through the revenue records and we are satisfied that the land in question has been classified as “Sarkar Poramboke” earmarked for thaneer panthal dharmam.

¶42

6.The learned single Judge was therefore justified in ordering removal of the permanent tin roof structure that was erected in the immediate vicinity of the temple. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. At the same time, we need to recognise the customary rights. Patayadharars are permitted to erect the shed during the annual temple festivals for the purpose of carrying out water charity. The jurisdictional Police are directed to

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

4/6

¶45

W.A.(MD)No.1399 of 2021

¶46

extend their fullest assistance to the management of the temple for removing the tin roof structure put up by the appellant.

¶47

7.This Writ Appeal is disposed of by affirming the direction given

¶48

by the learned single Judge. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶49

[G.R.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 21.02.2025

¶50

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA

¶51

¶52

1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶53